AGENDA MEMO
CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:
March 1, 2010
Issue Statement
PZC
2010-02: 8105 Cass Avenue,
Overview
Both the Planning and Zoning
Commission and the Municipal Services Committee, at their respective meetings,
recommend approval of the petition as presented.
The
draft ordinance is attached.
The
complete staff memo follows as “Additional Information.”
Decision Mode
The Planning/Zoning Commission considered this item
at its meeting on February 17, 2010.
The Municipal Services Committee considered this
item at its meeting on February 22, 2010.
The City Council will consider this item at its
meeting on March 1, 2010.
Additional Information
Issue Statement
PZC
2010-02: 8105 Cass Avenue,
Applicable
Regulations: Sign Code: Section 4-3-7(B)(3): Signs Specifically Prohibited.
Sign
Code: Section 4-3-7(E): Placement of Signs on Lots.
General Information
Petitioner: Landmark Sign Group
Property
Owner:
c/o
Grubb and Ellis Management Services, Agent
Property
Location:
PIN: 09-34-102-018
Existing Zoning: B-1
Neighborhood Convenience Shopping District
Existing Land Use: Vacant,
outlot to an adjacent shopping center
Surrounding Zoning and Land Use:
North: B-1 Neighborhood Convenience Shopping
District: banquet hall/restaurant
South: B-1 Neighborhood Convenience Shopping
District: office
East: B-1 Neighborhood Convenience Shopping
District: shopping center
West: O Office: office, medical clinics
Comprehensive Plan Update: Commercial
History: The subject
property, as well as the surrounding parcels, was annexed in 1972.
Size of Property: 1.74
acres
Floodplain: Floodplain
map does not show floodplain on this lot.
Natural Features: None.
Transportation: Property
has frontage onto
Documents
Submitted
This report is based on the following information
submitted to the Community Development Department by the petitioner:
1. ALTA/ACSM
Land Title Survey, 1 sheet, prepared by Glen D. Krisch Land Surveyor, Inc.,
latest revision dated September 24, 2007.
2. Sign
Drawing, 2 sheets, prepared by Landmark Sign Group, latest revision dated
December 14, 2009.
Planning Overview/
Discussion
The petitioner proposes to construct a new
free-standing sign to replace an existing sign at the same location. The proposed sign will replace the existing
free-standing sign located at the north entrance to the
A public hearing is not required for considering a
variation from the Sign Code. Therefore,
public notice was not provided.
The proposed sign is considered an off-premises
sign, a sign that does not advertise a business conducted or a product sold on
the same property as the sign is located.
Off-premises signs are prohibited.
The sign is to be located on the outlot located in front of the Darien
Plaza shopping center, but will advertise businesses located on the parcel
behind the shopping center, 8141-8147 Cass Avenue, and the parcels to the
south, 8201-8205 Cass Avenue.
A sign permit was issued for and constructed on
The proposed sign is a free-standing sign, which
complies with the maximum permitted height and sign area:
|
|
Proposed |
Sign
Regulations, permitted |
|
Sign
height |
10 feet |
12 feet, maximum |
|
Sign area |
43 square feet |
60 square feet, maximum |
|
Base |
Sign base equals 100% of the sign width. |
Sign base must be at least 75% of the sign width. |
|
Landscaping |
Approximately 2.5 feet x 4+ feet |
4 feet on all sides of sign. |
Per the Sign Code, free-standing signs are to be
located at least 20 feet from a driveway entrance. However, the Sign Code allows this setback to
be reduced, for every foot greater than 4 feet that the sign is from the front
lot line, the setback from the driveway may be reduced by a foot. The sign is to be 35 feet from the front lot
line, therefore, this setback can be reduced by 31 feet. The proposed sign will be located within an
island in the middle of the driveway entrance, just like the existing sign.
Per the Sign Code, free-standing signs are to be
located at least 30 feet from an interior side lot line. The proposed site plan shows the sign to be
19 feet from the interior side lot line.
Per the proposed site plan, the sign will be
located 35 feet from the street right-of-way, exceeding the minimum required
setback.
Per the Sign Code, landscaping is required at the
base of the sign, the landscaped area must be at least 4 feet in width on all
sides of the sign base. Currently, the
area around the sign is landscaped with shrubs.
However, the area does not meet the area requirements. Per the Sign Code, the Director of Community
Development may require the additional landscaping at an alternate location.
Staff could not find any previously granted
variations or approvals for the existing sign location.
In considering a petition for a variation from the Sign
Code, the Commission shall consider the following:
1. The available locations for adequate
signage on the property.
2. The effect of the proposed sign on
pedestrian and motor traffic.
3. The
cost to the applicant in complying with the Sign Code as opposed to the
detriment, if any, to the public from granting of the variation.
4. If
undue hardships and practical difficulties result in complying with the Sign
Code and if those hardships are a result of previous actions of the petitioner.
5. The general intent of the Sign Code.
Staff Findings/Recommendations
The
property which contains the businesses to be identified on the sign does not
provide adequate locations for the sign to be visible to the general public,
the sign will not impact pedestrian or motor vehicle traffic, and staff
believes the sign meets the general intent of the Sign Code.
Further,
the proposed sign will be an improvement over the existing sign. In fact, other than the location, the
proposed sign will be in greater compliance than the current sign. Therefore, staff recommends the Planning and
Zoning Commission make the following recommendation in favor of the variation
petition:
Based
upon the submitted petition and the information presented, the request
associated with PZC 2010-02 is in conformance with the standards of the
Planning and Zoning Commission
Review – February 17, 2010
The
Planning and Zoning Commission considered this matter at its meeting on
February 17, 2010. The following members
were present: Beverly Meyer –
Chairperson, Robert Erickson, Ronald Kiefer, John Lind, Raymond Mielkus,
Kenneth Ritzert, Susan Vonder Heide, Michael Griffith – Senior Planner and
Members
absent: Donald Hickok and Gloria Jiskra
Michael
Griffith, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. He noted the location of the sign. He stated the main issue is that the sign is
off-premises. He stated the proposed
sign will be located in the same location as the existing sign, which is
located at the south entrance to the
He
noted that the same property owner owns several other buildings along
Shuan
Ensign, Landmark Sign Group, the petitioner, described the sign and asked if
they could raise the sign 6 inches.
Mr.
Griffith stated as long as the sign did not exceed 12 feet in height, it would
be fine.
Commission
Ritzert asked if there were any prior approvals for the existing sign.
Mr.
Griffith stated he could not anything on the existing sign. He stated that he understood the City annexed
that area in the early 1970s as already built, so assumes the sign was permitted
under the County’s ordinance at that time.
Chairperson
Meyer asked about the set back from the side lot line.
Mr.
Griffith stated that the sign does not meet the side yard setback, but stated
he did not see that as a major issue. He
said the current sign does not meet the setback and it has not caused a problem
with vehicles coming off and onto
Mr.
Griffith stated the Sign Code does not address a sign located within a driveway
island.
There
was a comment regarding the sign illumination and if the lighting would be on a
timer. Mr. Ensign stated that the top
part of the sign will be illuminated, but that the illumination would likely be
less than the current sign due to the sign panel coloring. Mr. Ensign stated he did not know if the sign
lighting would be on a timer, but stated he did not think the sign would be on
all of the time, as that is not typical.
Commissioner
Kiefer noted that the landscape area did not meet the code.
Mr.
Griffith confirmed this, but stated that there is landscaping currently at the
base of the sign and felt the intent was met.
He stated the Sign Code allows for the Director to require landscaping
elsewhere.
Mr.
Kiefer did not see this as an issue, since there is already landscaping at the
sign base.
There
was not anyone from the public to offer comments.
Without
further discussion, Commissioner Kiefer made the following motion, seconded by Commissioner Erickson:
Based
upon the submitted petition and the information presented, the request
associated with PZC 2010-02 is in conformance with the standards of the
Upon
a roll call vote, THE MOTION CARRIED by a vote of 7-0.
(Commissioners
Hickok and Jiskra were absent.)
Staff Comments for Municipal
Services Committee
Based
on the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation, staff recommends the
Committee make the following motion recommending approval of the petition:
Based
upon the submitted petition and the information presented, the request
associated with PZC 2010-02 is in conformance with the standards of the
Municipal Services Committee
Review – February 22, 2010
The
Municipal Services Committee considered this matter at its meeting on February
22, 2010. The following members were
present: Alderman Joseph Marchese –
Chairman, Alderman
Absent:
Michael
Griffith, Senior Planner, reviewed the staff agenda memo, noted the requested
sign variations and the Planning and Zoning Commission’s recommendation. He noted the proposed sign location. He stated the new sign will comply with the
permitted sign height and area.
Alderman
Schauer confirmed the new sign will be located in the same location as the
existing sign.
Mr.
Griffith stated yes, same location. He
stated the existing sign has not caused any problems with motorist’s
visibility.
Shaun
Ensign, Landmark Sign Group, the petitioner, was present.
There
was not anyone from the public to offer comments.
Without further discussion, Alderman
Schauer made the following motion, seconded by Alderman Galan:
Based
upon the submitted petition and the information presented, the request
associated with PZC 2010-02 is in conformance with the standards of the
Upon
a voice vote, THE MOTION CARRIED by a vote of 3-0.